New Butterfly Vario

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very
impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM), GPS
flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial horizon,
and many other very nice features. You can see details here:
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
contests that this instrument, as described, will not
be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
artificial horizon.
UH

[Mike the Strike]

I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.

It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
forward to hearing some flight reviews.

Mike

[Brad]

I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.

Brad

[Andy]

On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, unclh...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> artificial horizon.
> UH

Early reports on this unit indicated the horizon can be disabled.
Don't know the means or whether such disabling would be considered
equivalent to having a conventional mechanical gyro instrument removed
from the glider. It seems the designers did consider the need though.


Andy

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

It will remain to be seen as to how it is disabled and how this is
confirmed so enforcement isn't a PITA.
UH

[Sean Fidler]

Im debating this and the V7. Maybe even the clearNAV. With Flarm, nano and the butterfly vario I would have 3 certified loggers in my glider...so it feels a little overkill and very expensive. For another 1500 you can have an LX8000. Not sure if that $3300 price is going to fly. The V7 seems best at the moment.

[Tony]

On Jan 26, 2:26 pm, Sean Fidler <smfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Im debating this and the V7.  Maybe even the clearNAV.  With Flarm, nano and the butterfly vario I would have 3 certified loggers in my glider...so it feels a little overkill and very expensive.  For another 1500 you can have an LX8000.  Not sure if that $3300 price is going to fly.  The V7 seems best at the moment.

and with Flarm, Nano, and Butterfly you still would need something
additional if you like a moving map. I'm thinking that someday when
my glider fund gets fat enough my Oudie and Nano coupled with the V7
should be a neat setup.

Butterfly would be sweet if you wanted to get into cloud flying. Add
a turn coordinator for a full IFR panel.

[johngalloway]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237087259684129&set=a.237087179684137.60624.117992798260243&type=1&theater

[Brad]

> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237087259684129&set=a.23708717...

eventually my panel will consist of either the Butterfly or the V7
that will be talking to my PNA running LK8000 flight software. I do
have a Tru-Trak which adds more to the decision
making.............maybe a lot of used Tru-traks will be on the
market?

thanks for the link.

Brad

[Richard]

Horizon:
- the artificial horizon can be deactivated in a secure manner (tamper-
rpoof, just like IGC logging)

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[JohnDeRosa]

Stupid question - the second in as many days on RAS from me - Why is
an artificial horizon illegal? I read it in the rules but the "Why?"
is never included.

It would permit flying into clouds? Bad for obvious safety reasons I
suppose, and someone might be tempted to purposely be sucked up into a
thunderhead to pop out the top and then final glide the entire task!

[Mike]

I believe cloud flying in US contesst is no longer allowed.

[Eric Greenwell]

On 1/26/2012 12:57 PM, johngalloway wrote:

>> I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
>> cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.
>>
>> Brad
>
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237087259684129&set=a.237087179684137.60624.117992798260243&type=1&theater

What are the two gray spots between the knobs on the right?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today. It looks
quite impressive to me.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm#Butterfly-Vario

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

"Brad" <apis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e65b87e0-5689-4a10...@v6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...

[johngalloway]

On Jan 27, 4:10 am, "Paul Remde" <p...@remde.us> wrote:
> Hi,
>

> I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today.  It looks

> quite impressive to me.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm#Butterfly-Vario

>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>

> "Brad" <apispi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

The real question about this vario is whether the inertial measurement
unit information is successfully utilised in a way that could shift
variometry up a notch. There were hopes that the 302 would develop
that way when it was first introduced and similar hopes for the
development of the CearNav vario but have Butterfly got there first??

If so, then the price seems not unreasonable - add a display such as a
PDA or Oudie and you have all the functionality of an LX 8/9000
including its expensive compass and Artificial Horizon options.

[Richard]

> including its expensive  compass and Artificial Horizon options.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Some additional information about the Horizon from Butterfly FAQs

The Butterfly Vario features an artificial horizon. Will it be allowed
to use the
Butterfly Vario in competitions?
The artificial horizon can be deactivated. The deactivation is logged
by the integrated IGCLogger
and thus is tamper-proof. Butterfly urges rulemaking bodies to
introduce new
competition rules that forbid the use of equipment that enables cloud
flying but allows the
installation and deactivation of such equipment during competitions.

Several Customers have order the Butterfly for use with the Craggy
Aero Ultimate Le.

http://www.craggyaero.com/ultimate_systems.htm

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Andy]

On Jan 26, 8:49 pm, Mike <rs15z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe cloud flying in US contesst is no longer allowed.

No it isn't but that rule is not, and cannot, be enforced. If it was
some very well known pilots would lose their standing.

I'm not talking about being 950ft below when the regulations require
1000ft below (substitute 450/500 for East coasters) but deliberate
entering of a cloud layer for competitive advantage.

Andy

[Mike the Strike]

Perhaps as this technology becomes more widely available we should re-
examine the rules against cloud flying in competitions. In my
experience, these rules are frequently infringed by pilots who fly up
to cloud base, into, round or over cumulus clouds!

I'd be interested to hear from contest pilots who can honestly say
that they have never infringed regulations regarding clearance from
clouds. I suspect the rule is probably unenforceable.

Mike

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

> Mike- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So you are suggesting that we make IFR flying a part of our
competions?
I'm curious as to how you think that might work.
UH

[Mike the Strike]

As Andy pointed out earlier, prohibiting cloud flying is largely
unenforceable and a number of pilots already do this for competitive
advantage. I'm just suggesting leveling the playing field!

Last year, I spotted a fellow competitor exiting a cloud and ribbed
him over a beer afterwards. His comment - "a good job clouds aren't
shown on igc files!"

Mike

[Sean Fidler]

To me, cloud flying is entirely unenforceable. Not the just the IFR flying part. The part where a King Air is descending thru a cloud into a regional airport hits a glider in or just under the cloud and crashes.

That said, it seems to me that forcing all pilots to remove, disable or strongly encourage them not acquire a vital safety tool (artificial horizon or turn and bank) because a few pilots might cheat is irresponsible. Perhaps I am naive about the competitiveness of contest glider pilots?

Another perhaps more effective way of enforcing cloud clearance regulations would be simply to encourage law abiding pilots protest or call out such pilots. In competition the protesting pilot can assemble a group of "witness" pilots who can testify as to what maximum experienced cloud base was in a particular range of time on task & compare this with the protested pilots IGC trace. In other words, peer pressure and public humiliation.

If found guilty, the powers that be can choose to give the protested pilot a warning or deduct points based on the perceived advantage for her/his violation. On the second infraction, automatic disqualification from the day would result. On the third, disqualification from the contest and ban them for 1 year, etc. Whatever. Once this began to happen and honest pilots felt empowered, problem solved.

But to be perfectly honest I could care less about this aspect of the discussion. What I care about is safety. And the bigger concern in safety is the pilot who accidentally (or intentionally for that matter) flies into a cloud. This rule seems to invite disaster for some poor pilot who makes a mistake (and or one who tries her/his luck at cloud flying and becomes disorientated). I am sure the reason for this rule was the pilots who bought the instruments to be able to cheat. But dont you think outlawing an AH is a little extreme? I think most pilots would be safer having one in their glider just encase. New solid state instruments can easily incorporate at very little cost. This rule is out of date.

The artificial horizon rule is & unsafe for the vast majority of law abiding pilots. Gliders can get pulled into clouds inadvertently. We should encourage safety over the ability to cheat. In my opinion the rule should be completely removed in favor of the pilot protest method outlined above. I had just begun looking into getting a turn and bank instrument for safety reasons. I sold my LX5000 and will have an extra 80mm hole in my panel. What better to install then a vertical compass card or a turn and bank?

Are turn and banks also illegal or just a gyro AH? I would really like to buy one and install it this spring. Let me know.

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

Read rule 6.6.1
Also note that flying in cloulds is an FAR violation and obviously it
makes no sense to permit equipment in competition that wouls have the
purpose of making it possible to cloud fly.
The cloud flying that I'm talking about is climbing within the cloud
as a tactical part of the flight.
If we fly legally, there is no significant liklihood of needing an
artificial horizon.
Do you want to be circling up in a cloud with half a dozen of your
friends?
Pilots can always report unsafe flying. I am aware of several cases
where pilots spent too much time in the rags of the clouds and were
reported to the CD. A little wood shed action broughtthat to a halt.
This is also why CD's are encoraged to put the maximum start height
500 feet below cloud base.
UH

[Mike the Strike]

There are times when you might get into clouds unintentionally. Years
ago, on another continent, I got trapped above a layer of low cloud
that formed near storms and had to descend through it. My trusty
Jantar-1 had an SZD gyro turn and bank that enabled me to make the
descent with wings level. I almost never used that instrument, but
was glad I had it on that occasion.

A couple of years ago on a cross-country flight in Arizona, I
thermalled up high on mountains and then flew over lower terrain and
found myself over the tops of cumulus clouds and had to dodge my way
round them to the thermals underneath.

In contests, pilots I observe routinely get up into the wispies (yes,
we all do it!). When you're climbing in a ten-knot thermal it can be
hard to judge when to stop and suddenly you're in the cloud. Where
there is a dome of increased cloudbase under a cumulus, you can end up
exiting through the side of the cloud. I suspect this happens a lot,
even unintentionally.

No-one, let alone a CD at a distant airport, has any clue where the
clouds or cloudbase are.

I'm with Sean in that, if you have an instrument that might improve
safety, it would be stupid to disable it.

More fun for the Rules Committee!

Mike

[Bruno]

I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand
why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a
competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc
records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good. I
would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that
instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now
disabled.

How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is
available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger
of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if
that feature is used? It would still be available if the crap hit the
fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero
points for the day. Some of the best pilots I know who are also very
safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above
clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves
getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument
to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can
accommodate that.

Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention. :)
Bruno - B4

[Richard]

I would suggest to all that unless you are a trained and current
instrument pilot your probably should not rely on a butterfly horizon
to get you out of a jam. Many accidents in power aircraft are
attruibted to flight into IMC with perfictly good instrument aircraft
and unprepaired pilots. Entering a cloud in a glider is usually not
a benign manuever, possibly you will be at VNE already in turbulent
conditions and quite easily can go past VNE and flutter the wings off.


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Tony]

bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly
how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says
the artificial horizon was used. Like you say I think that is a good
way to address this. If shit happens and you get sucked into a cloud
(See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the
instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for
zero points.

[Ron Gleason]

This is fine as long as WINSCORE is updated to check for these IGC
file markers. Are there standards defined for such inclusions within
IGC files?

[T8]

I think there are a lot of straw men being constructed here w.r.t.
contest rules.

The *only* times I have been the least bit concerned about getting
caught in cloud have been when I was deliberately "twisting the
dragon's tail". Can you honestly tell me differently?

Our current rules philosophy is that we do not encourage this sort of
thing in competition, witness recent revisions to finish height
rules. I... somewhat reluctantly... agree that this is probably best
for all concerned.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

There are no provisions for this in Winscore .
The RC position on these devices is that they are not permissible
under the long
established rules philosophy and they will not be allowed to be used,
The RC is working with
Butterfly to determine how best to remove this feature during
competition while not adding to
the work load of the scorer and other contest workers.
This has not yet been determined.
I will provide more information on this as it becomes available.
UH
RC Chair

[kirk.stant]

On Feb 6, 3:38 pm, unclh...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> There are no provisions for this in Winscore .
> The RC position on these devices is that they are not permissible
> under the long
> established rules philosophy and they will not be allowed to be used,
> The RC is working with
> Butterfly to determine how best to remove this feature during
> competition while not adding to
> the work load of the scorer and other contest workers.
> This has not yet been determined.
> I will provide more information on this as it becomes available.
> UH
> RC Chair

Hank, what is the RC position on PDA/PNA software such as LK8000,
which has a functioning "turn-coordinator" page? Sure it says not to
use it for instrument flight, but it sure looks like it could be used
for a little cloud busting -or for getting down through a surprise
cloud layer, which is actually a nice feature and why it is included,
I'm sure.

Ditto some of the Garmin hand-held GPSs, which have a GPS-derived
"panel".

Of course, these are not gyro instruments, so cannot be legally used
for instrument flying, of course...

Kirk
66

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

Read 6.6.1 and draw your own conclusions based upon what you know
about these devices.
If a pilot is using and instrument- PDA's with software could fall
into this catagory, that permits flight without reference
to the horizon, he or she is not in conformity with our rules.
UH

[Sean Fidler]

Exactly. My watch can allow me to cloudfly if I really want to. This is unenforcable and compromises safety over the chance that someone could cheat. Safety MUST BE the prioriry. No? Not here I guess? Fly into a cloud and die? Thats what this rule says. Wow, thats a great idea!

The JS1 at reno had a mechanical turn and bank? Is that illegal? Must this guy remove it to fly in a regional? I find that silly.

This old, outdated and unenforcable rule should be removed today.

Who is going to enforce this rule? Each task day?

I am installing a turn and bank. I thumb my nose at this rule. Go ahead and throw me out of the contest. I honestly could care less.

That vario by the way is REALLY nice and I strongly encourage anyone interested to buy it regardless of this ridiculous rule which deliberately discourages safety, innovation and trust.

[Herbert kilian]

>
> I am installing a turn and bank.  I thumb my nose at this rule.  Go ahead and throw me out of the contest.  I honestly could care less.
>
> That vario by the way is REALLY nice and I strongly encourage anyone interested to buy it regardless of this ridiculous rule which deliberately discourages safety, innovation and trust.

Hey Sean, aren't you the kid from my 6th birthday party who didn't
like the rules when we played 'hide and seek', packed up the present
he had brought and left??? You haven't changed a bit...

[Dan Marotta]

I was going to ask Sean if he's instrument rated and current. Is he
competent flying partial panel? Notwithstanding the above, is his glider
certified (in this country) for cloud flight? Is he going to pick up an
instrument clearance before needing to use this instrument?

I am qualified and have considerable experience flying partial panel in real
clouds, but I wouldn't so flagrantly voilate the rules as Sean seems to be
implying he's willing to do.

But wait! Wasn't it he who implied that it was *I* who am neither
intelligent nor safety conscious?

Can't have it both ways, Kid...


"Herbert kilian" <herbk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:584b925a-d02b-46f3...@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

[Sean Fidler]

I choose safety. Continue flailing...I enjoy it.

As for your panic fire about filing, etc. I laugh at you. I am laughing hysterically at you both.

Safety. Its that simple.

[Tony]

A very strong safety argument can (and has for many years) been made
for keeping gaggles out of clouds.

[Sean Fidler]

Dan. I honestly feel sorry for you.

Intelligent pilots choose safety. FLARM is safer than nothing at all. You disagree, I shake my head at you. An AH is a life saver in the case of an emergency. Wave closing out below, etc. All of your ridiculous reason on that being illegal is just funny. Sad, but also funny.

So why have safety paint? Why does a cirrus have a chute? Why have a GPS? A Radio? Brilliant Dan...BRILLIANT. Fight the good fight!

I truly enjoy your effort to argue against safety. Please keep trying. We love it. It proves a valuable point to many. You still serve a purpose.

[glider12321]

As for flying with a turn-n-bank, I have never tried it for real. But,
for you condor flyers out there, try climbing into a cloud on your
computer and using the TNB to keep upright and circle. It is VERY
difficult without a lot of practice. Just get straight and try to fly
out of the cloud. Even on the computer without inner ear motion tricks
it's tough to do.

[T8]

This thread has gone from strawman to tinman.

Whistle with me:

"...my head, I'd scratchin' while my thoughts, they'd be hatchin', if
I only...."

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Eric Greenwell]

My understanding is the rule was introduced because pilots were using
them for contest advantage rather than increased safety should they
inadvertently enter a cloud. The cloud flying would discourage pilots
from entering contests that were unwilling to take the risk or break the
rules, and would decrease safety as less able pilots attempted to risk
cloud flying.

So, I'd say the question might be: "Are we safer with a rule that might
- very rarely - mean someone is sucked into a cloud accidentally without
a blind-flying instrument; or a rule that encourages frequent
intentional flights into clouds?"

Of course, you can always carry one around when you aren't flying a contest.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Sean Fidler]

It is alot better than nothing if it happens that you ever need it. And it is RIDICULOUS to outlaw it from the cockpit of airplanes when people want to have them as a safety measure, just encase.

Any of you with instrument training, partial panel training...will understand. Sure most people, even with a turn and bank, are in a world of hurt once IMC is encountered. I get that.

But saying the T&B is illegal is like saying to the window washers that its illegal for them to wear safety harnesses because is encourages them to skip maintenance on their cranes.

Shocking to me that someone needs to explain the logic here. Shocking.

[Bill D]

On Feb 7, 6:56 pm, Eric Greenwell <ow...@thegreenwells.netto> wrote:

> My understanding is the rule was introduced because pilots were using
> them for contest advantage rather than increased safety should they
> inadvertently enter a cloud. The cloud flying would discourage pilots
> from entering contests that were unwilling to take the risk or break the
> rules, and would decrease safety as less able pilots attempted to risk
> cloud flying.

The following is just some rambling thoughts.

IIRC, the "no-gyro" rule was in effect since at least the early
'60's. Back in those days pilots were not required to carry a
barograph so there was no altitude record. I suspect the rule was
just to insure cloud flying didn't happen.

Safety-wise, the old gliders handled a "benign spiral" better than the
extremely slippery racers of today so the no-gyro rule didn't
introduce much of a safety issue.

Now, loggers provide altitude data so it should be possible to spot
any pilot climbing higher than cloudbase by comparing IGC files so
maybe there is less justification for a no-gyro rule.

[Brad]

I made sure to add a Tru-Trak to my panel.

In my early days of hang gliding I got sucked into a cloud as it
rapidly formed and eventually totally engulfed me; it was
terrifying................I eventually spun out the side of the cloud
and once I had ground reference it was easy to correct. If anyone
tells you using a compass will save you it's not true. Another time I
was in wave in my ASK-14 when a wave cloud precessed and totally
whited me out...........I had a Wendezeiger installed in the panel and
it was on. 5 minutes later I flew out of the bottom of that cloud
totally wings level and under control.

The most recent occurance I had no turn instrument, and was lucky
enough the blue hole under me stayed open long enough to spiral down
thru. It's amazing how at 9k the cloud tops and blue holes are easy to
see and navigate around, it's also amazing as you descend how those
cloud towers completely block your view and what ever blue holes are/
were out there get limited rapidly.

From a safety standpoint I'll have that Tru-trak as insurance, and I
have partial panel experience as a PPSEL, and no, just because I have
the training I'll not use that as justification to cloud
fly...........it's illegal and un-safe...there I said
it...............un-safe and I'm not swinging thru the trees as I type
this.

Brad

[Bart]

A couple of thoughts.

I would like to point out that there are good precedents. For example,
some of us already fly with devices that supposedly encourage
excessive risk taking. They are called "engines", and we figured out a
way to handle this issue. You start the engine, your logger detects it
and it counts as a land out.
I see no reason why the same approach could not be used for any kind
of cloud flying equipment.

I know that it is possible to get into a cloud without trying to (or
while actively resisting). I got sucked into one. Due to the
cicrumstances it was neither unsafe nor illegal, but certainly
unintended.

Oh, and it is possible to make a sensor that would detect it when a
glider is in a cloud. And there would be countless ways of
circumventing it. Sometimes it is best to rely on a honor system.

Bart

[John Cochrane]

> your logger detects it
> and it counts as a land out.
> I see no reason why the same approach could not be used for any kind
> of cloud flying equipment.

This means the scorer has to get every log every day, so you can't
turn in your primary log and forget to turn in the butterfly log. It
means Guy has to reprogram winscore for every new instrument that
comes out. It means that any failure of the butterfly log also means
zero for the day any gap in the log, any security failure, anything at
all goes wrong with it and you lose points. That's way too much to put
on the poor scorer, and I'm not sure you'd want it once the ifs ands
and buts are spelled out!

>
> I know that it is possible to get into a cloud without trying to (or
> while actively resisting). I got sucked into one. Due to the
> cicrumstances it was neither unsafe nor illegal, but certainly
> unintended.

I'm mr safety in contests, but I think we need just some hint of a
problem before we change rules. I know of zero -- zero -- incidents in
US contest soaring that a cautious pilot, not pushing the limits, got
unintentionally sucked in to a cloud, and wished he had a "safety"
artificial horizon.

I know of lots of incidents of pilots deliberatly flying in to clouds,
with or without gyros; and many more deliberately flying into / under
thunderstorms and other low visibility situations. (We have the
"safety finish" for a reason!)

The balance of safety -- to say nothing of competitive fairness --
still seems to me squarely on the side of the no artificial horizons
rule

John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

With respect...

So you're arguing that no one has yet died and therefore are suggesting that "we need to have an incident first" before the rule setters will consider changing this (outdated and ridiculous) rule? OK. I'll just shut up and wait for that to happen. No accident has occurred that can be directly correlated to disorientation in IMC in a glider? I doubt that (many incidents have happened over the last 20 years, just nothing fatal yet assuming your facts are correct). And if you are correct I promise you that one will happen at some point. Its just a matter of time before it does. And this thing could prevent that from happening.

Is this the message that we want to send all pilots (students, etc) within the soaring community? Contest pilots do not use AH's (actually have a rule that you must take it out of the aircraft or disable the function on your Vario, Watch, Computer, etc) because it makes you push the edges and anyone who has one wants to cheat? They reason that contest pilots are safer knowing that if you break cloud-base or get trapped on top (whatever)...you'll probably will die? This way nobody needs them.

It should only about safety, not a contest or competition concern. The number of honest pilots greatly outweigh the very few who might attempt cheating with the instrument. Safety should trump the chance that someone may cheat by light years. This rule clearly is outdated, unenforced, unenforceable and should be a DEEP safety concern. Half the people who flew contest last year probably had AH's on board. Good for them! This rule has not been enforced at all.

This is fairly embarrassing for the contest aspect of our sport in my opinion. If anyone wishes to put an AH in their glider it should be ENCOURAGED and PRAISED. Not outlawed. This logic is completely backwards. Instead the prime concern is someone may cheat and in this thread we have posts focused on A) don't buy this GREAT VARIO because B) you only want it to cheat and C) I will throw you out of the next contest because you would be cheating by owning it. Instead the concern is D) how do we disable this vario's functionality so it can be legal when 100% of future electronics and 50% of anything designed within the past 4-5 years already has this functionality.

Wow! Is it just me? I have the space in my panel and would love to install one. I must be a cheater. How dare I consider it...?

[Eric Greenwell]

On 2/8/2012 5:36 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> With respect...
>
> So you're arguing that no one has yet died and therefore are
> suggesting that "we need to have an incident first" before the rule
> setters will consider changing this (outdated and ridiculous) rule?
> OK. I'll just shut up and wait for that to happen. No accident has
> occurred that can be directly correlated to disorientation in IMC in
> a glider? I doubt that (many incidents have happened over the last 20
> years, just nothing fatal yet assuming your facts are correct). And
> if you are correct I promise you that one will happen at some point.
> Its just a matter of time before it does. And this thing could
> prevent that from happening.

Do you fly in contests?

[Sean Fidler]

What if I have flown contests? What if I havent? Please define for us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.

[John Godfrey (QT)]

On Feb 9, 3:07 am, Sean Fidler <smfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What if I have flown contests?  What if I havent?  Please define for us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.

In looking back through the Pilot Opinion Poll comment responses and
minutes of the Rules Committee meetings back to 2007 (on the SSA
site), I cannot find any instance where the issue of forbidding the
use of artificial horizons or turn & banks has been raised.

The RC makes great effort to seek considered pilot opinion formally as
part of the poll and informally via email submission. All input is
reviewed and considered each fall, the minutes published, the proposed
rule changes published for comment, etc. etc.

This year we received exactly 2 comments on the rules changes.

The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
new instrument came along is not a good idea.

I can only conclude that this is really a case of being surprised to
find the rule exists.

[Andy]

On Feb 9, 7:28 am, "John Godfrey (QT)" <quebec.ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
> instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
> new instrument came along is not a good idea.

Some people are not suggesting that the rules should be changed, only
that an instrument that has a disabled AH should not be prohibited.

The objections to inspecting the log are surprising since I thought
that was to be the proposed method of enforcing FLARM use.

Rather than saying an instrument with a disabled AH is banned under
SSA contest rules, wouldn't it be more constructive to define what
method of disabling would be acceptable, and then for the manufacturer
to consider implementing that provision?

What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
496, or even LK8000. All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.

As to those that think having an AH will save you I hope you have some
instrument training, or better an instrument rating. Flying in IMC on
instruments, particularly recovering from an upset, is not as easy as
some might think.

Andy (GY, CFII)

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

What you describe is exactly what the RC is working on.
A related issue is how to reliably disable non approved functions
without having the scorer be required to monitor
this.
We have had constructive discussions with the Flarm folks about how to
do this outside the flight log and practical
solutions appear to be available. All of this related to Flarm is on
hold till we get some practical experience.
The RC determination on this topic will be forthcoming quite soon.
UH

[John Godfrey (QT)]

The Rules Committee has posted the policy on using instruments that
provide features enabling flight without reference to the horizon.

See http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf

[Richard]

I think that in I the quest for fairness that the rules for
motorglider engine use should also be rewritten to allow for use if
disabled for a period of 14 days.

It absolutely not fair that a motorglider can eliminate a potentially
all night retreive. Maybe we can cancel the next day if anyone have a
more than 4 hour retreive.

This would save the scorers time and contest officials a lot of time.

Is this more ridiculous than it appears a simple program change as was
done for motorgliders can solve this issue.

Richard

[John Cochrane]

> What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
> 496, or even LK8000.  All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
> not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.
>

> Andy (GY, CFII)


The rules committee position is the rules:

6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

If a garmin 496 or LK8000 has a useable AH, then it is against the
rules to carry it in US competitions. Expect a complaint from your CD
if he notices, or a protest from a fellow competitor. If you want to
carry them without breaking the rules, follow the new procedures John
Godfrey just posted.

A bit of explanation on this rule. I'm sure an individual pilot, who
knows he's never gong to cheat, might like to have an AH "just in
case." Alas, there have been lots of instances of cheating and
dangerous behavior in the past. If we allow AH, somebody is going to
be heading up in to clouds.

Now, you might say, so what? But when piltos get the idea that other
people are cheating it poisons the sport. Going to contests becomes
less fun, just if you suspect that some big shot made it over that
tough blue hole with a cloud climb.

Then, lots of pilots feel justified in cheating because "you know,
everyone is doing it." Next thing you know, we have fleets of gliders
all heading up in to the clouds, and the "safety" advantage of having
an AH "just in case" evaporate with a fleet of gliders out there doing
illegal cloud flying in a gaggle.

So far, I think the opinions of most pilots are that they would rather
forego the questionable individual advantage of having an AH to keep
this scenario from breaking out. You, who would never cloud fly
intentionally, give up having an AH, so that you know that those crazy
bozos around you won't cloud fly and beat you in the race by doing
something both illegal and dangerous.

This is really not a rule imposed from above. It's a gentleman's
agreement among pilots. If pilots would rather have it the other way,
so be it -- make a fuss at the next rules cycle, we'll put it on the
poll, and see if a large majority votes for artificial horizons.

I doubt this project is going very far. Pilots just strongly voted to
keep the ban on cockpit weather instruments intact, though the costs
of letting everyone else have them are a lot lower.

When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.

John Cochrane

[Mike the Strike]

On Feb 9, 10:32 am, John Cochrane <john.cochr...@chicagobooth.edu>
wrote:

...and I thought economics was the dismal science! Do I have to add
Finance to that too?

I couldn't disagree with John more on this. Firstly, the problem in
contests is not deliberate flying through clouds, but the frequent
close approach and occasional infraction that occurs to all of us -
both recreational and contest pilots. Every pilot I know is going to
squeeze the last few hundred feet out of a thermal, too often going
very close to cloud base. Even the "gentleman's agreement" doesn't
work to control this. I have been in and around enough contests to
see this frequently and (at least after a few beers) most contest
pilots will fess up! I have seen more than one of the names high on
the ranking list sneaking out of the side of a cumulus!

The RC is going to have to face the reality that more and more
instruments are going to have weather data and many flight computers
are going to add some sort of horizon. Maintaining a rule that is out
of step with technology isn't going to work, in my opinion.

I can certainly agree that keeping contest pilots away from clouds is
a worthwhile safety goal, but I disagree that restricting the
capability of their instrumentation is the best way of achieving
this. If you want to keep pilots away from clouds, you have to come
up with a method of monitoring this. At least one instrument
manufacturer has an idea how to do this. Yep, more work for the
scorer!

Mike (a non-dismal physicist!)

[Bruno]

Thank you Rules Committee for going through the effort to get this
done so quickly. I have a Butterfly Vario on order and am relieved
there is now a mechanism in place for it to remain in the glider
during contests. Fingers are crossed that Butterfly will be able to
make the software changes necessary to implement these rules for the
2012 season.

Thanks again,
Bruno - B4

[Bart]

On Feb 9, 9:32 am, John Cochrane <john.cochr...@chicagobooth.edu>
wrote:

> When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
> on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
> Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
> not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
> tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
> have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.

John,

What is the policy regarding unidentified instruments? You see, I
happen to enjoy making my own gadgets.
Let's imagine that I entered a competition and you are the CD or a
fellow competitor. You glance at my panel and see this weird, LCD
screen. Out of curiosity, you ask "what is it?".

My answers:

(1) I would rather not answer.
(2) It's an intelligent vario. I made it myself!
(3) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
myself!
(4) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
myself! In theory, it could even act as an AH, I just haven't written
the firmware yet.
(5) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
myself! It could even act as an AH, but I have a vario-only version of
firmware loaded right now.
(6) It's an intelligent vario and AH. I made it myself! I promise I
will not use it as an AH.

What would you do? Note that no matter what my answer is, you have no
way of verifying it - short of reverse-engineering the device.

Bart

[Bart]

On Feb 8, 3:06 pm, John Cochrane <john.cochr...@chicagobooth.edu>
wrote:

> > your logger detects it
> > and it counts as a land out.
> > I see no reason why the same approach could not be used for any kind
> > of cloud flying equipment.
>
> This means the scorer has to get every log every day, so you can't
> turn in your primary log and forget to turn in the butterfly log. It
> means Guy has to reprogram winscore for every new instrument that
> comes out.

Well, Butterfly is supposed to be a logger right? So, no need for two
logs. And I guess it could be made to record enabling AH as "engine
noise." From Winscore point of view it would mean "end of flight in
the competition", no software changes necessary.

Mind you, I am not trying to argue. I am not even a competition pilot.
I am just not sure if the technical problems you mention are nearly as
hard as they seem to be.

Bart

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

We worked with Butterfly in developing this process and they are on
board.
UH

[John Godfrey (QT)]

If I was the CD or scorer (and I have been both) I would respond as
follows:

1. Expect to have your altitude trace closely compared against others.
Remember rule 6.1
2. Very nice! See 1
3. Even nicer! See 1
4. See 3
5. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver
6. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver

QT

[Frank Paynter]

On Jan 27, 6:31 pm, Bruno <brunovas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
> the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand
> why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a
> competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc
> records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good.  I
> would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that
> instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now
> disabled.
>
> How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is
> available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger
> of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if
> that feature is used?  It would still be available if the crap hit the
> fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero
> points for the day.  Some of the best pilots I know who are also very
> safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above
> clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves
> getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument
> to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can
> accommodate that.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention. :)
> Bruno - B4

Just to add a bit more fuel to the fire, there is a large body of
evidence on the power side that even *with* an artificial horizon and
turn indicator, the average lifetime for a non-instrument-rated pilot
in clouds is about 3 minutes, and the accident sequences on which this
evidence is based almost invariably start with straight and level
entry into IMC. Anyone who thinks that just installing an artificial
horizon in their glider is a 'get out of jail free' card is fooling
themselves. I urge anyone considering this to get a copy of Condor
(which has a turn indicator installed in most panels) and try their
luck at maintaining any sort of reasonable attitude/airspeed solely by
reference to instruments.

When I owned a Cirrus SR22 power plane some years back, I carried a
GPS-196 (with a GPS-generated artificial horizon and turn coordinator)
with me as a last-ditch backup if all the electrics died. This
worked, but it took quite a bit of practice to be able to stay
reasonably upright using just that instrument.

Just my $0.02

TA

[Andy]

On Feb 9, 11:48 am, "John Godfrey (QT)" <quebec.ta...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If I was the CD or scorer (and I have been both) I would respond as
> follows:
>
> 1. Expect to have your altitude trace closely compared against others.

That can't possibly be a valid test. The first season I had my
ASW-28 I had a convincing win on Day 1 on R9. The reason was that I
found a thermal climb in severe VMC to an altitude several thousand
feet above the best anyone else saw for the day. Similary in a local
club contest, on a day that everyone was struggling to even stay in
the air, one competitor found a huge thermal that enabled a glide to
the first turnpoint and a day win.

There is currently no practical way to ensure a competitor does not
enter cloud. There is currently no practical way to ensure a
competitor does not violate cloud clearance regulations. As long as
that it true competitive pilots will push as close to cloud base are
they think will give a competitive advantage. Some pilots are more
competitive than others but I doubt there is a single pilot on the
West coast that would break off a 10kt climb at 12,000ft because they
estimated that the cloudbase was 13,000ft

Andy (GY)

[Cliff Hilty]

At 19:15 09 February 2012, Frank Paynter wrote:

>On Jan 27, 6:31=A0pm, Bruno wrote:
>> I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
>> the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand
>> why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a
>> competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc
>> records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good.

=A0I

>> would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that
>> instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now
>> disabled.
>>
>> How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is
>> available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger
>> of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if

>> that feature is used? =A0It would still be available if the crap hit

the
>> fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero

>> points for the day. =A0Some of the best pilots I know who are also very

CH Ventus B

"If we are all "just dust in the wind", then I want to be at the top of a Huge Dust Devil!"

[Cliff Hilty]

John and All, Just for a moment put all the other rule-software-hardware
changes aside, how do you think contest pilots would react to the CD
setting a Max flying height for the day! Just say the weather man forcasts
cloudbase to be 10K msl for the day and the CD announces max flying height
of 9.5k and all logs for that day are checked for max height just as they
are now for 17.5k. Now no advantage to cloud flying, no need to worry about
what instruments we have or don't have.

Sure that weather man may not have it right but we still have a max height
limit regardless. If his estimate is low and cloud base is 2k higher it is
still fair as no one can go higher. If he is too high and cloudbase is
lower we are right where we are now but with todays forcasting abilities he
would not be off that far and it is movable right up until the start gate
opens.

Just sayin---

[Cliff Hilty]

[T8]

On Feb 9, 3:28 pm, Cliff Hilty

Not practical in the East, for sure. As well, it doesn't necessarily
solve the problem.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[T8]

On Feb 9, 1:17 pm, Mike the Strike <Stringm...@msn.com> wrote:
> Even the "gentleman's agreement" doesn't
> work to control this.  I have been in and around enough contests to
> see this frequently and (at least after a few beers) most contest
> pilots will fess up!  I have seen more than one of the names high on
> the ranking list sneaking out of the side of a cumulus!

Then you have a problem. Your options would appear to be peer
pressure or the safety box.

I'm not really a safety monkey (I'd go back to zero height finish
lines in a heartbeat), but I chafe badly when confronted with
borderline suicidal behavior. This is one such instance. I'd be
absolutely ripped if I had a really good day, stayed legal, got beat
by some jackass cloud flying.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Mike the Strike]

I'll repeat what I said earlier and Andy pointed out a few posts ago -
it's very hard to know when to pull out of a strong thermal as you
approach cloudbase, particularly out west. Most competitive pilots
will go as high as they can, since there is no practical way to
maintain the mandated clearance and no penalty if they do bust it.
Most will go into cloud as an unintended consequence at the top of a
fast climb they held for just one turn too many. This will happen
regardless of whether or not there are cloud-flying instruments.

Many competitors are already breaking the rules on mandated clearance
from clouds and there is no way to monitor this or penalize the
behavior. If you want to prevent it, you are going to have to come up
with a way to monitor it.

As a fellow contest pilot said to me "I'll start worrying when clouds
are shown on igc files"

Mike

[T8]

Ah, okay. I misread your comments earlier as something much less
"incidental".

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Andrzej Kobus]

I would only like to make you guys think about the following. With
current GPS moving map devices and sampling rates of <= 1 sec as well
as very high zoom selection you already pretty much know if you are
turning or not. If you add bank indicator (still allowed) you have all
you need for T&B.

I don't have an opinion on allowing AH type of instruments in our
cockpits. I am against cloud flying period. I realize though enforcing
this is next to impossible unless we all have cameras to record our
flights for inspection.

No more devices in my cockpit. I am already scratching my head where
to put the PowerFlarm (ghost). I also need a small nuclear power plant
in my glider to power all of these "must have" devices.

[Eric Greenwell]

On 2/9/2012 12:07 AM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> What if I have flown contests? What if I havent? Please define for
> us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.

I'm hoping that knowing your experience will let me discuss the
situation with you more usefully, rather than just guessing at it and
telling you things you already know, or omitting things that would be
useful to you.

You know my experience in contests from my comments here, but I still
don't know yours.

[Eric Greenwell]

On 2/9/2012 7:49 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Exactly. So the chance of being proficient and climbing up into the
> cloud using a turn and bank is slim to none. Right. So why not let
> pilots have a turn and bank so that there is at least a chance for
> them if they do one day get into the cloud.
>
> A hear post after post and frankly am losing respect fast.
>
> This is so wrong...sad. The RC craps on safety out of fear that
> someone might cheat with an instrument that even the RC says is
> unusable for what is feared, thermal-ling into clouds with it.
>
> You guys would be great witnesses in my trial...keep it coming.
>
> Really think about what you are saying here.
>
> 1) assuming anyone with a safety instrument onboard at a contest has
> installed it to cheat 2) assuming that a) its impossible to use
> safely if IMC is encountered AND AT THE SAME TIME b) that everyone
> with one intends to cheat and will benefit from it. 3) totally
> disregarding the safety aspect of the instrument.
>
> More observations: Why does any glider have one? Why does any light
> airplane have one? Why do these companies build AH's into their
> instruments?
>
> Are these people all idiots? Because that's what you are saying.
> Why do these instruments exist for gliders? In any form? Hmmmm?

My guess is you have not flown in contests, do not have experience
flying in clouds in a glider, and do not have very much glider
experience. I flew contests for 30 years, and never needed a
cloud-flying instrument, nor did anyone report needing one, and no one
has lobbied for them to be allowed. 30 years! Plus, I've flown 5000
hours in gliders outside of contests, and never needed one even then.

You are making way too big a deal out this. The risks in contests do not
come from flying without a cloud-flying instrument, but from many other
sources. It is not just at the bottom of the list; it's not even on the
list.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Andy]

On Feb 9, 5:55 pm, Andrzej Kobus <soa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If you add bank indicator (still allowed) you have all
> you need for T&B.

To the best of my knowledge the only bank indicator allowed by SSA
contest rules is the pilot's view of the world outside the cockpit.
What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?

Andy

[T8]

On Feb 10, 7:26 am, Andy <a.dur...@netzero.net> wrote:

> What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?

That's his checkbook register. After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. The fear
of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-).

-T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)

[Mike the Strike]

Eric - the issue is not whether or not you need a particular
instrument but whether, since they are going to be included in an
increasing number of multi-use instruments, these should be
prohibited. In nearly 2,000 hours of glider flying, I have only found
the need for a horizon on two occasions, but I was glad to have one!

Your argument could be used for parachutes too - I have never needed
or used mine.

Mike

[Sean Fidler]

So I received this email today. Who else received this email?

q^%&%&^%&^g...@gmail.com
12:49 PM (2 minutes ago)

to me

This message may not have been sent by: quebec...@gmail.com Learn more Report phishing
The Rules Committee (RC) has become aware of glider instruments that are available, or will soon be available, which will have built-in artificial horizon capabilities. The RC reaffirms the longstanding rule that instruments which can be used to enable flight without reference to the ground are prohibited in competition. The RC policy addressing this issue is posted on the SSA website: www.ssa.org > sailplane racing > rules & process > important reading -- Instruments with Artificial Horizon or T&B Features http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf

SSA Contest Committee Chair

--------------------------------------------

And what of my watch, my 396, etc?? I think the rules committee might want to consider another path. I would hate for someone to get tossed at the end of the competition because they flew with an instrument that might save their life someday / or an instrument which has AH capability that they were unaware of... I just find this rule silly, but perhaps I underestimate the lengths that some might go to cheat. Wow is this a dark side of contest soaring. What a shame that this is a policy that some want to stand behind. Safety should be the priority. Here...ANTI SAFETY is the goal.

[Sean Fidler]

From the SSA Rules Committee:

US Competition Rules Committee Policy on Instruments Incorporating
the Capability for Flight Without Reference To the Ground
February 8, 2012
The US Rules Committee ("RC") reaffirms the longstanding rule that instruments which can be used to
enable flight without reference to the ground are prohibited in competition. The following policy
relating to multi-function instruments that provide such functionality as a feature has been adopted
based on consideration of the implications and side effects on contest procedures, scoring software and
the imminent start of the US contest season; and discussions with manufacturers and pilots:
1. Rule 6.6 will remain as is.
6.6
6.6.1
Restricted Equipment

Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:

• Permits flight without reference to the ground.
• Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a
distance greater than one wingspan.
2. By waiver, the RC may allow the installation of such a device if the RC determines that the
“artificial horizon” or “turn and bank” capability can be effectively and verifiably disabled for the
period of the competition.
3. To obtain a waiver a competitor must:
a. Ensure that the device in the configuration to be used is submitted to the RC for
inspection well before the intended use (at least one month). This must also include a
statement of compliance from the manufacturer.
b. Request and obtain the waiver from the RC
4. The RC will use the following criteria in determining whether a specific device is eligible for
waiver:
a. It must be obvious to the casual observer that the forbidden capabilities are disabled or
entirely absent when the device powers up and when the disablement will expire.
b. It must not be possible to re-enable the forbidden capabilities during the period of
competition. Examples of re-enablement scenarios would include:
i. Reloading firmware
ii. Changing device settings
iii. Performing any kind of hardware reset (e.g. removing backup battery)
5. The procedure for using the device is expected to be:
a. The competitor with a waiver disables the capability at the beginning of the contest
b. The competitor demonstrates to an appropriate contest official (e.g. CD, scorer) that the
disabling has been done.
c. After 14 days the disablement expires (i.e. daily checking of IGC logs is not an acceptable
process)
<end>

[T8]

On Feb 10, 12:59 pm, Sean Fidler <smfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I received this email today.  Who else received this email?

Read it again. The answer is on the very next line of that email.

Answers to your other questions have already been answered and the
rationale explained.

-T8

[Sean Fidler]

I do fly contests, have many, many hours, am a commercial pilot, instrument rated. So I guess your incorrect. Hmmm.

Any more lessons for me?

[noel.wade]

I received it as well.

I am concerned because a good number of us use PDA software that may
include new features we cannot easily disable. So we all are suddenly
not legal to fly in contests this year, or we're open to being
protested because we use free software that we don't control?

You're telling me that I have to buy a whole new Flight Computer,
because *that's* the best way to deal with the issue of cloud-flying?
Make competitors spend more money (and arguably have less "safety
equipment") onboard?

What about Smartphones, many of which have gyros and can be used as a
(really bad) AH device? You mean we have to fly without cell-phones
now, or buy a cheap crappy cell-phone for use in our glider?

I've resisted weighing in on this so far, but I'm really galled by
it. Cloud-flying has happened in the distant past, but I've been
involved in competition for the last few years and its been POUNDED
into me that you absolutely don't do it, either in competition or in
casual flying. Its a stupid risk to take and the potential gains are
minimal (i.e. your National Trophy isn't stuffed with a million
dollars and doesn't come with a titanic sponsorship deal; it isn't
worth dying for).

Surely there's a better way to deal with the cloud-flying temptation
than by cutting off a bunch of people at the knees and hobbling their
ability to use tools and equipment that are perfectly legal and
adequate in every other way...

--Noel

On Feb 10, 9:59 am, Sean Fidler <smfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I received this email today.  Who else received this email?
>

[Sean Fidler]

To sum all of this up, as I am bored of the subject and know where old political power plays will go (as we sit today)...

The SSA has made the decision to outlaw T&B because they are more concerned with the chance that someone would be able to cheat with instrument than the chance that some might die without it.

I am estimating that very few would try to cheat, and that very few (but many more than would try cheating) might benefit from the T&B in the next few years. The SSA rule says we hope that person comes out of the bottom of that cloud in pieces, and screw you...cheater! ;-)

A policy that allows the T&B for everyone (especially now that it can and will be easily included in modern instruments) would be a win for safety and logic (IMO). It is time to change this rule.

If people want to cheat, fine. Its a game, for fun...right?

But why limit a major safety option for a sport in which most pilots are flying near clouds all the time?

This unenforced (and unenforcable) rule is going to become more and more of a challenge to enforce.

I do race contests...and have never needed a T&B yet. But I am sure the day will come... So I am installing one. Its that simple for me.

[Ron Gleason]

On Feb 10, 5:54 am, T8 <tangoei...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have read the position released by the RC,
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf ,
and am trying to understand how the process will work from a
competitors, RC chairperson and a SSA sanctioned competition score
keeper (I have scored contests the last couple of years and have
plans to do so in 2012).


The document reads:

<??> Does 3a mean that the competitor must submit the instrument from
their plane to the RC for inspection?
<??> Not sure how 4a is to followed. Will each instrument that
receives a waiver be documented and that documentation be available to
all SSA members, CD's, and scorers?
<??> How are CD's and scorers suppose to know how each instrument
works and the setup being shown to them is compliant?
<??> Are the contest registration forms and/or checklists being
updated so that contest organizers and other personnel know to check
for waivers, similar to insurance forms?

I believe that advances in technology and instruments are great and
will greatly enhance our flying enjoyment and safety. I am concerned
and eager to understand how this procedure will affect the workload of
contest organizers and rules committee members.

Ron Gleason

[S. Murry]

Does anyone here track the longest thread ever on RAS? This one's on its
third week. I think if we can keep Eric and Sean baiting each other for a
few more days, we'll probably have a record.

Whoever makes the Butterfly vario owes you guys a free sample...every day
I get about 10 pop-ups on my computer with "New Butterfly Vario" as the
subject. Personally, after all these pop-ups, I have a weird compulsion
to buy one of these things. I don't even know what it does, and I'm happy
with my current vario, but I just feel compelled to give Paul Remde my
credit card number...very strange.

Of course, if you do get a freebie, remember not to use it in a contest...

--
Stefan Murry

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

Hi Ron
It is expected that manufacturer's will submit representative units so
that the RC can determine that they comply.
We fully expect a list of compliant devices to result. No we don't
know where that list will live.
A complying instrument will display the information required to
veriify on start up. A contest official observes once and it's done.
Much of how this is being handled is targeted toward not increasing
the score's workload. This is why saving compliance information on the
flight log was determined to not be acceptable.
No forms will need to change. It is up to the pilot, if he has one of
these, to demonstate compliance. The other option is a screw driver.
We understand that new stuff is coming and this is why this policy was
created to get ahead of it and give pilots and manufacturers some
reasonable way to comply with a long standing rule.
UH
RC Chair

[Ron Gleason]

Thanks for the quick reply Hank.

I see the process and want to believe it to be simple.

I am envisioning the RC producing a document that shows the start up
screens, etc, of the instrument for visual reference for use by the CD
and/or scorer.

This process is analogous to the ENL verification for a motor
glider. yes it is up to the pilot but beating by the scorer and other
techniques are required for many folks to have it down prior to the
first day of competition.

Nice job and solution for getting in front of the wave!

Ron

[T8]

On Feb 10, 1:18 pm, "noel.wade" <noel.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am concerned because a good number of us use PDA software that may
> include new features we cannot easily disable.  So we all are suddenly
> not legal to fly in contests this year, or we're open to being
> protested because we use free software that we don't control?

[...] other good points snipped.

Phones, watches and PDA software cannot be policed, full stop. LK8000
is designed to run off an SD card.

So, practically speaking, they won't be. I don't think anyone would
actually be stupid enough to try flying blind on these "instruments"
intentionally and if you'd like to try having blundered into cloud
unintentionally, well, good luck, you'll need it.

Gyros in the panel are a different story. I can think immediately of
three guys that would have, at one time, jumped at the chance to cloud
fly in a contest if they thought they could get away with it and it
would give an advantage. I think they have mellowed a bit with age
(but in one case -- not so sure!).

Sean -- in my view -- is spinning an army of straw men. Unlike Eric,
I've flown contests for *only* 20 years and I'd echo -- "it's not just
at the bottom of the safety list, it isn't even on the list." It's
easy to stay the f--- out of clouds if you even give a nod to the
FARs. Would I like a turn gyro or AH in my panel -- sure! -- but I
absolutely do not need it for contest flying (we get a lot of wet wave
in the Fall in NH, that's another issue altogether).

If the rules change w.r.t. instruments, I won't complain. But I will
rat you out if I see you flying into or out of a cloud. That's a
promise.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Brad]

From what I read and understand in the rules if I obtain a waiver, and
have my Tru-Trak inspected, and the on-off switch is "off" and perhaps
safetied with witness wire then perhaps I'm ok to fly a contest. Or
maybe I pull 2 screws and place a cat food lid in front of the
display.

I'm more than happy to demonstrate compliance by wiring my switch with
a disabling mechanism, but don't make me unscrew my panel, pull wires
and remove an instrument. It's sad that by default I would be
considered a potential cheater because I consider an AH a basic safety
need.

The other issue that Noel brings up is the LK8000 and that AH page. I
would like to think that on top of everything else, I would not need
to buy and learn another piece of soaring software just because there
is a AH page on my flight computer. I've made a few comparisons with
the Tru-Trak and the LK8000 AH, I would not rely on the LK8000, but if
I had nothing else and it meant giving that a try or ripping my wings
off I would at least try it. Maybe Paolo could add a button to "dis-
able" the page?

Here's a great way to stifle pilots who might be tempted to fly
competition................remove your turn and bank, or don't fly in
our competition.

Brad

[Marc]

On Feb 10, 11:13 am, unclh...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

The iPhone 4 and 4S (along with the newest Android and Windows phones)
contain 3-axis gyroscope and accelerometer sensors, and that there are
already at least two "artificial horizon" applications in the App
store. Both appear to be rather poorly implemented, but there is
nothing inherently preventing someone from creating an effective (and
accurate) implementation using known sensor fusion techniques. This
can't be disabled, and even if the iPhone is inspected and determined
to be free of offending apps, the phone can simply be synced with a
laptop to reinstall in a matter of moments. I suspect there will be
some resistance to banning these phones...

Marc

[Sean Fidler]

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. In general everything they do is outstanding. Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. ?

Thank you rules committee for your services. But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. Sorry about that. I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

[John Godfrey (QT)]

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Feb 10, 6:15 pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" <quebec.ta...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

[Brad]

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad

[Dan Marotta]

As long as hot chicks hang out at the finish line, and the prize money is so
bountiful, pilots will cheat to win! What, no chicks? Oh, never mind...
:-)


"Brad" <apis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c284702-494f-494e...@vd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

[Bart]

On Feb 9, 10:48 am, "John Godfrey (QT)" <quebec.ta...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > What would you do? Note that no matter what my answer is, you have no
> > way of verifying it - short of reverse-engineering the device.
> If I was the CD or scorer (and I have been both) I would respond as
> follows:
>
> 1. Expect to have your altitude trace closely compared against others.
> Remember rule 6.1
> 2. Very nice! See 1
> 3. Even nicer! See 1
> 4. See 3
> 5. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver
> 6. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver

Hmmmm. It seems that if I ever make such a device and write two
firmware versions (AH and no AH), then, in order to fly in a contest,
I will have to
- load the version without AH support, AND
- never mention the existence of the other one.

Safety considerations aside, I think that many contributors to this
thread are concerned about devices that COULD, at least in theory, act
as an AH. For example, XCsoar is open source and runs on Android
phones, some of which have gyros. Lousy rate gyros, but gyros
nevertheless. Anyone with the necessary skills can modify the
application to display some sort of AH.

I guess what I am getting to is that you either trust the pilot or you
don't. If the rules are tightened enough to prevent any sort of AH in
the cockpit, then there may be no pilots willing to compete. I am
certainly not flying, competition or not, without my Android phone.

Bart

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

> Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As I alluded privately, your solution for you situation could work.
Not sure how you deal with disabling a piece of equipment you put on
your MEL, but assume could.
I'm the CD. You come to me on practice day and give me a bit of a
whine and ask me to look at your disabling method. Lets say I agree to
cut you a break and I put a seal tape someplace so it is secured.
Everybody is happy.
Now- multiply that by 20, or 30 , or 50.
Now- nobody is happy.
Organizers and officials would never want to have to deal with that.
We spent quite a bit of time on the Butterfly application to lay the
ground work for it and other programmable devices so that they can be
checked very quickly and in a common manner.
We want everybody to come play, but we have to keep the workload for
organizers and officials in mind.
The truth is that if you showed up with your True Track covered and
with clear indication it was disabled, I doubt anybody would notice or
give a darn.
UH
The issues are not simple as you can imagine.

[Brad]

Hank,

that works for me!

thanks,
Brad

[noel.wade]

To prove Bart's point, how about: http://www.hiltonsoftware.com/index.html

The iPad is thin enough to tuck behind your seatback until after
takeoff, then you lean forward and pop it out (hopefully after you
release from the towplane so you don't risk killing him if you lose
control of the sailplane).

Look, I appreciate a lot of the rules committee and for the most part
I think the guys involved are great people. It can be a tough job and
I'm not upset with them personally. I don't WANT people to cloud-fly,
and I'll certainly NEVER cloud-fly, and I DO think its easy to stay
clear of clouds (even if you're "pushing it"). But this is a total
"cut off our nose to spite our face" kind of deal. You can't possibly
cover every scenario and "strip search" every glider. You can't stop
everyday technology (that people use in their normal life) from
filtering into the sport (shall we try to return to the pre-GPS days,
anyone?).

As far as UH's comment: "There is no way that the RC could ever go to

the BOD and say that we can accept permitting equipment that permits
true cloud flying"

That's fine, but we're not _preventing_ "true cloud flying" right
now. People can still cloud-fly with or without the equipment
(they're just EVEN DUMBER if they do it without the equipment).

Why not tell the BoD that the rules still forbid cloud-flying, and
leave it at that? Or state that both flying IMC and the use of
artificial horizons are against the rules and violators are subject to
explusion and suspension from flying for a period of X years? You can
discourage behavior by instituting extreme penalties for anyone who
gets caught. Yes, their odds of being caught may not be great, but
stiff penalties (including a lengthy ban from contest-flying due to
"unsafe flying") changes the risk-reward equation in people's minds.

And frankly, if someone's determined to cheat they will find a way to
do so. My long experience in auto-racing proves that out! Why make
life hard on *everyone* in a futile attempt to stop a few bad apples?

Let's try a thought-experiment: We handicap gliders based on their
make/model, because we expect all gliders of a given model to perform
relatively similarly, right? How come we don't check to see if
someone's reprofiled the wings of their ship, to give them a better
airfoil? They could theoretically get better performance than the
handicap indicates. It would be hard to detect - especially with an
older glider in Sports Class that's been refinished once or twice in
its life. It would be even harder to prove. But under the same logic
being applied to the Artificial Horizon gear, we would have to measure
every airfoil of every glider, and BAN all gliders that have any signs
of being refinished. Hunting down and trying to eradicate all
potential sources of artificial horizons or instrument-flying seems as
equally-impractical as what I've just proposed.

The point is, as Bart says, there are some things that are just not
practical to try to control 100%. Why not just declare that the use
of such device functions illegal, and then rely on the protest process
to throw out the few bums who cloud-fly and (hopefully) get caught?
Why hurt everyone who's trying to buy a good piece of equipment or is
getting into competitions "on the cheap" with free PDA software, or
who owns a modern cell-phone?

I'm not mad, I'm just bewildered...

--Noel